BANKING CORPORATIONS. 55where it may be threatened, or there may be good reasonto apprehend it will be made. [See note 21.] § 34. When any of the visitatorial powers enumerated yo^™/}™^"'in the last section, over any corporation, are or shall be ^®""™-vested, by statute, in any corporate body or public officer,R. 505). In this case, Maule, J., said,—" If the directors have no authorityto enter into the contract, their act is not that of the company,—it is no eon-tract as regards it. The directors are authorized to do certain things for aparticular object; if they do acts beyond that object, though under the cor¬porate seal, it would not be the act of the company." (7 Railway Cases, 152.) " Indeed it is not contended," says Jervis, C. J. [1 Railway Cases, 155), " thata company so constituted, can engage in new trades, not contemplated bytheir aot; but it is said that they may embark in other undertakings, how¬ever various, provided the object of the dircctors be to increase the profit oftheir own railway. This, in truth, is the same proposition in another form;for, if the company cannot carry on a new trade, because it is not contem¬plated by the act, they cannot embark in other undertakings, not sanctionedby their act, merely because they hope the speculation may ultimately in¬crease the profit of the shareholders. They cannot engage in any new tradebecause they are a corporation only for the purpose of making and main¬taining the Eastern Counties RaUway. What additional power do they ac¬quire from the fact, that the undertaking may in some way benefit theirline S * * * If the contract is illegal, as being contrary to the act ofParliament, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of dissenting sharehold¬ers; for if the company is a corporation only for a limited purpose, and afiontract like that under discussion is not within their authority, the assentof all the shareholders to such a contract, though it may make them all per-sonaUy liable to perform such contract, would not bind them in their corpo¬rate capacity or render liable their corporate funds." The case of the EastAnglian Railway Company was cited and approved by the Court of Exche¬quer Chamber, in the case of McGregor v. The Dover and Deal Railway Com¬pany (7 Railway Cases, 227 ; 16 Eng. L <fe E. R. 180. See note 21, and casesthere cited. (21) It is now settled, by repeated decisions in England, that a court ofchancery wUl, upon the application of an individual corporator or share¬holder, interfere by injunction, to prevent the directors, or managing body ofa corporation, from using, pledging, or applying the corporate funds in supportof any project not pointed out in and expressly authorized by its charter,—and this, although such project may be assented to by a majority of theshareholders; and also that acquiescence by shareholders in a project, for how¬ever long a period, affords no presumption that such project is legal; and